Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review.

[1]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  F M Corl,et al.  CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. , 2001, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[3]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. , 2001, BMJ.

[4]  S. Ascher,et al.  Staging of Gynecologic Malignancies , 2001, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[5]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Systematic Reviews in Health Care , 2001 .

[6]  N. deSouza,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the primary site in stage I cervical carcinoma: A comparison of endovaginal coil with external phased array coil techniques at 0.5T , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  L Arrivé,et al.  A scale of methodological quality for clinical studies of radiologic examinations. , 2000, Radiology.

[8]  Chang Cy,et al.  Cervical carcinoma: assessment of parametrial invasion and lymph node metastasis with magnetic resonance imaging. , 2000, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi = Chinese medical journal; Free China ed.

[9]  M. Hirokawa,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in early cervical cancer. , 2000, Gan to kagaku ryoho. Cancer & chemotherapy.

[10]  T. Cheung,et al.  Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  M. Gutberlet,et al.  Pre-operative staging of cervical cancer: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) with histologic results. , 2000, Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie.

[12]  M. Zeegers,et al.  [Practice of systematic reviews. VI. Searching, selection and methodological evaluation of etiological research]. , 2000, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[13]  P D Bezemer,et al.  Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[15]  L. Bouter,et al.  De praktijk van systematische reviews. III. Methodologische beoordeling van onderzoeken , 1999 .

[16]  L. Bouter,et al.  De praktijk van systematische reviews: II Zoeken en selecteren van literatuur , 1999 .

[17]  Y. Yamashita,et al.  Carcinoma of the uterine cervix , 1998 .

[18]  M R Segal,et al.  Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. , 1997, JAMA.

[19]  A. Jadad,et al.  The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[20]  H. Hricak,et al.  Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment work-up--cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. , 1996, Radiology.

[21]  H. Hricak,et al.  Cervical Carcinoma: Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Staging , 1995, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  P Glasziou,et al.  Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  H C Van Houwelingen,et al.  A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  L E Moses,et al.  Estimating Diagnostic Accuracy from Multiple Conflicting Reports , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[25]  L E Moses,et al.  Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  D. Botsis,et al.  The value of computed tomography in staging cervical carcinoma , 1988, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[27]  D. Rubens,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging and pathologic correlation in stage IB cervix cancers. , 1987, Gynecologic oncology.

[28]  R J Panzer,et al.  Workup Bias in Prediction Research , 1987, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  M. Morino,et al.  Lymph nodal metastases and the clinical stage of cervix carcinoma. , 1987, European journal of gynaecological oncology.

[30]  P. Silverman,et al.  Computed Tomography in Evaluation of Extrapelvic Lymphadenopathy in Carcinoma of the Cervix , 1985, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[31]  Y. Tanaka,et al.  Relationship between lymph node metastases and prognosis in patients irradiated postoperatively for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. , 1984, Acta radiologica. Oncology.

[32]  L. Lagasse,et al.  Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. , 1980, Gynecologic oncology.

[33]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  W. Hoskins,et al.  Staging of cervical cancer. , 1975, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[35]  J. van Nagell,et al.  The staging of cervical cancer: inevitable discrepancies between clinical staging and pathologic findinges. , 1971, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.